[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: EPEL6 When to go out of Beta?



On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:08:22 -0600
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net> wrote:

...snip...

> What does "released" mean for EPEL?  AFAIK it doesn't mean "100%
> packages available".  There is a set of packages that are (or at least
> are believed to be) ready now; why not release them now?  If someone
> is waiting on CentOS to get their packages ready, that's okay; those
> packages won't be in the EPEL 6 release tree until they are.

Well, it means the ones in now are the ones we will try and stick with
for the next 7 years. ;) 

> That's why I asked if there is some metric to use to decide when EPEL
> is "ready".  If it is X% of packages, or certain "major" packages,
> that should be documented somewhere, and then when that point is
> reach, EPEL can be released.  I don't see any reason for just waiting
> an arbitrary amount of time (what if nothing really changes in a
> month?).

No metric that I know of... we were asking for more feedback on this
from the list, since we have never done this before. ;) 
EPEL was created after RHEL5 was out, so we never have created a new
EPEL release after a RHEL came out. ;) Help us decide what makes sense. 

> EPEL doesn't have separate release and updates trees; there's just the
> EPEL tree.  Packages are added as somebody picks them up, so I would
> say just release what is considered ready now and let EPEL 6 grow
> over time (just like previous EPEL versions have done).

ok. 

...snip..

> I still think some clear direction about which OS is the primary
> target for EPEL (RHEL or CentOS) should be stated.  Since CentOS will
> always lag RHEL (not through any failure of CentOS; it is just a
> fact), EPEL can either target RHEL and update things when new RHEL
> updates come out that require EPEL changes, or wait until CentOS gets
> the compatible update in place.  You can't have it both ways, at
> least not for the same packages, and I would think the policy should
> be the same for all of EPEL.

Agreed. I think We should follow RHEL in most cases, but consider CentOS
if there's some way we can help out or serve our centos users. 
We already do this for example with the buildsystem. We build against
RHEL, and update as soon as the RHEL version is out, not waiting for
CentOS. 

All good feedback. Thanks. 
 
kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]